Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

Let's be honest. Lieberman is not entirely welcome, by all Dems, to run as an independent.

Whether or not he has anything to owe to the Democratic Party is immaterial, unless one puts Party over person.

The rest of your critiques is silly personalization. If he voted against the Iraqi War, it is safe to say that edgar, blueflame et al would not describe his rhetoric as whiny or his presence as uncharismatic.

Consistency!

I don't get this line of thinking at all. Aren't most potential politicians attracted to a particular party because they support what that party stands for? Why have political parties at all if members believe they have the right to act as rugged individualists, to the extent of completely contradicting what their party espouses on important issues? I understand about "conscience" issues, but if a politician's stance seems completely at odds with his own party I can't see why he'd want to stay in it. Becoming an independent (or even joining a party whose policies better match his own beliefs) would seem a more principled way to go. I can't understand why his party can't expect loyalty & a bit more discipline from that politician, either.

The fundamental question is this: Does a politican owe his loyalty to the Party or to the electorate?

I'd put it this way: That politician can best serve the electorate by belonging to a party whose platform and policies s/he supports. No conflict. And the voters would be crystal clear about what to expect when voting (or not) for that person.

That's a dodge.

The politician can best serve the electorate by being true to the principles he or she articulate during the campaign.

The "platform" of any party is, at best, a guide.

I see it very differently to you. Though I have no idea (not living in the US) of Lieberman's campaign at the last election & how the voters perceived his position on important political issues. If Democrat voters clearly understood his political position (& how it differed from the party platform) & still voted for him, well I guess they got what they wanted.

Just curious, though: You'd think it was perfectly OK if a Republican politician very publicly expressed his or her sincerely felt disapproval of, say, the US Iraq invasion, declared that the US had no business being there and argued for immediate withdrawal of the troops?

But of course. Should a "Republican" candidate part ways from the party line, I would hope that the voters would judge him or her by their positions and not how those positions compare with the party line.

The Party should be a facilitator not a govenor.

You Party adherents, thing Soviet Union, think China...

The Party will never know what is best for the masses more so than what the masses believe.

We obviously see these things very differently. (Maybe there are difference expectations of individual politicians within political parties in your country & mine, I don't really know ...). But too me this is rather like an elected Greens member of parliament suddenly choosing to advocate the destruction of rain forests. To me, their perhaps sincerely held position would suggest that they should never joined the Greens in the first place, as they knew the party's clearly stated position on environment issues. Furthermore the Greens voters who elected them would be extremely annoyed, because that politician's stance clearly contradicted the party platform (& what they believed they were voting for). It would therefore be perfectly reasonable to expect that the politician leave that party, rather than work against it from within.

So must your thinly veiled attempt to support the only way a Republican can sneak into the Senate this year.


Never said it was.



You keep harping on this "more to the party than the electorate" baloney. I'm not saying it should be made illegal for anybody to leave a party and run as an independent.

What I am sayijng is that it speaks badly for a man's character when he joins a party as a nobody, wins primary after primary for the offices he seeks, sees those people he defeated in the primary congratualte him and then work for his election, uses the resources of that party to win his elections, but when it becomes HIS turn to possibly lose a primary he runs as an independent.

Lieberman's attitude is: "It's the expected thing for you to support me when I defeat you in a primary, but I'm not going to support the guy who beats me in a primary".

What Keltic Wizar doesn't know is that Lieberman will win as an independent. What amazes me is how Keltic Wizard can be consistently wrong so often. When Lieberman wins, I'll remind Keltic Wizard--the Anti-Free Speecher!

> Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman...

Probably because he was the last halfway rational person in the de-mokkker-rat party....

Preview of dem 08 campaign:



Audio:

http://sg1.allmusic.com/cg/smp.dll?link=yhe5e48s2a2vqom12mvu6c8&r=20.asx

Nonsense.

There is indeed a fundamental difference in perspective between systems where you vote for an individual candidate and his primary loyalty is to himself / his district's constituents, and systems where you vote for a party and its patform.

No democratic country's system is purely one or the other, but there are distinct contrasts. The US leans far toward the former, obviously.

The advantage of that is the direct connection citizens have with "their" Senator or Congressman, and the accountability that comes with that.

The disadvantage - apart from a promotion of clientalism/patronage that results beefed up "pork spending" - is that parties are often "big tents" of all kinds of candidates, and you can get pretty surprised about what you get. There's little in the ways of an official party platform or program, and no clear party leader if the party is in opposition. The result of that is that one's got a point when saying, "I dont know what the Democrats stand for" if only because, well - who represents them? Reid the Senate leader, Pelosi the House leader, Dean the DNC chairman, Hillary the presidential candidate? The same was true for the GOP in the 90s.

In party-based systems, you know exactly what each party stands for. They draft a 'binding' election program and they have a national leader, often elected by a vote amongst its members. You know what each party stands for, so you know that if you vote for that party, thats what any candidate on its list will work for when elected - they've committed to it.

That's far removed, of course, from the silly comparison with the Soviet Union or China, for the obvious enough reason that there, there is/was only ONE party. Citizens of multi-party democracies have the opportunity to vote for any party platform they want, and choose exactly the one that fits best with their personal views and beliefs.

Systems based wholly on individual candidates, like the US, on the other hand, arguably offer less choice to their citizens. With individual candidates elected in districts in winner-takes it all races, where minority votes by definition go lost, these systems are very likely to end up two-party systems, like in the US, or with some luck, like in England, three-party system. (Though it should be noted that in England the pressure to toe the party line is much stronger, and parties have both a clear national leader, a party programme that candidates are expected to follow, and a "Whip" in parliament to make them do so).

With a two-party system like in the US, the voters' choice is restricted to the extremely limited choice between a leftwing party and a rightwing party - or a party slightly left of centre and one slightly right of centre. Thats it. Worse, since you completely depend on whichever candidate runs in your district - if you're in Alabama, you get the choice between a conservative Democrat and a conservative Republican, and in Rhode Island between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. You have the freedom to vote - for variations of the same theme.

Of course, in a party-based, multi-party system, you end up with coalition governments, in which your party's views will also be compromising with others'. But the coalition is created in negotiations between parties - that is, between distinct and defined political platforms - and once the government is created, it is mostly again on the basis of a specific programme that resulted from those negotiations. You know what you get. In the US, on the other hand, majorities that are wrested for this or that controversial vote depend on 'buying off' individual candidates' pet projects or hobby horses - which results in the unsalabrious practice of tacking pork spending items to larger, unrelated policy bills.

There are distinct differences between party-based systems and individual representative-based systems, and although I have argued, in response to your facile Soviet reference, for the democratic values of a party-system, it's clear there are advantages to the alternative too. A Brit can "call his MP" if he has a problem or doesnt like a decision; whom does a Dutchman call? No clue. The bond between citizen and parliamentarian is abstract. On the other hand again, in Holland you can become active in a party and you actually get a vote on individual items in your party's programme, which all your party's candidates are then committed to following. In the US, your right to influence your candidate's vote on any one particular issue depends 100% on whether he chooses to lend you an ear or not. When you vote you simply give that candidate your confidence and hope that he's going to be a good person about it.

Many countries have in-between systems: in Germany, for example, you have two votes - one for your own district's MP, one for the party. There are variations. But your attempt to phrase the difference as a kind of philosophical choice between "true" democracy and dictatorship (the Soviet/China reference) is just weird.

Or rather, one individual blogger who supported Lamont, but was no formal part of his campaign, did.

One individual liberal blogger. "The Dems" my *ss.

I made that assessment of Lieberman the night of the debate between he and Cheney, a long time ago. It was my first good look at him and I was frankly shocked that the reality did not match the glowing pictures presented before that. I felt his presence on the ticket had to be a minus.

Lieberman Now More Popular With Republicans Than Democrats
Gallup: Sen. Lieberman Now More Popular With Republicans Than Democrats
By E&P Staff
Published: August 04, 2006

The much-watched Democratic primary election in Connecticut is just four days away, and today Gallup has come out with a poll that finds incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman with his lowest ratings ever. "As a result," a Gallup report released this morning relates, "he is now more popular with Republicans than with supporters of his own party," surely not a good sign.

Latest polls in Connecticut show that Lieberman now trails his opponent, Ned Lamont, who has charged that the senator is too close to the Bush administration on several issues, most notably the Iraq war.

The latest Gallup poll finds that among Republicans and Republican "leaners," 46% view Lieberman favorably, while 27% view him unfavorably. Democrats are more evenly divided in their attitudes, with 38% viewing him favorably and 32% unfavorably. Currently, his support among Republicans is on the upswing. However, this is from a national sample and may not suggest a likely outcome next Tuesday.

Also today, Gallup cited the results of its poll earlier in the summer which found that 55% of Republicans and Democrats called Iraq "extremely important" in considering their vote for Congress this year. Gallup noted, "It is clear that Lieberman is at odds with the vast majority of Democrats, who overwhelmingly oppose the war -- 82% say it was a mistake for the United States to send troops, according to the latest Gallup Poll. However, there are no precise data that verify that Democrats nationally are lukewarm on Lieberman specifically because of his unflinching support for the Iraq war."

Lieberman calls for Rumsfeld resignation

RAW STORY
Published: Friday August 4, 2006

US Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT)called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the Ed Schultz show, a nationally syndicated radio program Friday, RAW STORY has learned.

Lieberman said that while whether or not Rumsfeld leaves his post is the decision of President Bush, he should resign.

RAW STORY will post the audio when it becomes available.

DEVELOPING...

New Voters, Unaffiliated Rush To Join Democrats
I wonder how many of them are Republicans temporarily changing their registration to Democrat so they can vote for Lieberman in the primary. After the primary, they will restore their Republican registration for the November election. ---BBB


New Voters, Unaffiliated Rush To Join Democrats
August 5, 2006
By COURTNEY McLEOD, Courant Staff Writer

As Tuesday's primary draws near, town halls across the state are being inundated by people who want to register with the Democratic Party, according to the secretary of the state and town registrars.

From May through Friday, 11,496 unaffiliated voters became registered Democrats. From May through the end of July, 10,344 new voters became registered Democrats, said Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz. "If you think about those Democrats, those are people who are obviously motivated to participate. That could have an impact on not only turnout, but election results," Bysiewicz said.

The race for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate has drawn national interest, and challenger Ned Lamont has a double-digit lead over incumbent Joseph I. Lieberman, according to a poll released Thursday. Some have likened the primary to a referendum on the Iraq war, which Lieberman has supported.

"Every vote counts," said Douglas Schwarz, director of the Quinnipiac University poll that put Lamont ahead of Lieberman 54 to 41 percent among likely Democratic voters.

Since last month, the secretary of the state and others have been urging the state's 900,000 unaffiliated voters, who account for 44 percent of the state's registered voters, to sign up with a party.

Unaffiliated voters are not eligible to vote in Tuesday's primary. In addition to the Senate race, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. is running against Stamford Mayor Dannel P. Malloy for the Democratic nomination to take on Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and various candidates for the General Assembly are vying to be on the November ticket.

Since Bysiewicz started the Affiliate to Participate initiative in July, nearly 5,000 unaffiliated voters have become Democrats, compared with just more than 1,000 a month earlier. The number of unaffiliated voters who became Republicans rose slightly, from 117 in June to 161 in July.

"We expect that there's going to be a record turnout on primary day," said Marion Steinfels, a Lieberman spokeswoman. "And that's going to help Joe Lieberman. The more who come out to vote, the better he will do."

But the Lamont campaign says the numbers show that people are responding to the challenger's message.

"We see a lot of people who want change in Washington, who are willing to step up to the plate and be involved even though they might not have been involved before in the political process," said Liz Dupont-Diehl, a Lamont campaign spokeswoman. "We've always said that this would invigorate the party."

Registrars from Rocky Hill to New Haven say their offices have been busier than ever, local clerks said. In Manchester, 20 people have been walking into the registrars' office each day to sign up to vote. Usually, foot traffic is limited to one or two people a day, said Republican Registrar Barbara King. Other registrars say the number of unaffiliated voters who have become Democrats is especially high.

"Even in the presidential primaries, you don't see a lot of changes or new registrations. You see some, but it's usually just before the election," said Peg Byrnes, the Democratic registrar in East Hartford. About 85 voters - both new voters and formerly unaffiliated voters - became Democrats between July 7 and Tuesday in that town.

"Some of them have indicated that the day after the primary they're going to go back to being unaffiliated," Byrnes said.

I did the same thing in my district for a local election, so I'm not going to complain about it here.

I don't think there is too much of that going on. By far, the most likely way for the Republicans to win the Senate seat is if Lamont wins the nomination, Lieberman runs as an independent and the two then split the votes that normally go or lean Democratic.

Lieberman might be closer to the Republicans on some things, but electorally his nomination from the Democratic Party would be the worst scenario for the Republicans.